i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper asubproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in generalabout all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in mymind, that we need to answer to move forward:

1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be twoseparate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'mwondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. therelationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, butnot visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject andinclude bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.

2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm abit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because itfits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bitmore overhead to the zookeeper PMC.

3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the firstplace? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal isat least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project fromothers?

please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'mlooking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that willimplicitly answer 3 :)

I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was for me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those projects. Here are some thoughts, though:

- It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;- It would be really nice to have independent releases for bookkeeper/ hedwig;- It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and hdfs is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of bookkeeper (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper. Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps bookkeeper would be a better choice;- I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point. For this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared to incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.

-Flavio

On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:

> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from> others?>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will> implicitly answer 3 :)>> thanx> ben

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.>

IMO both hedwig and bk should eventually be separate, distinctprojects on their own. This will allow communities to form around themthat are focused on their goals. Additionally it would allow us tofocus on building the zk community. An analogy could be made tohadoop/hbase, or hadoop/pig&hive, or felix/karaf (or hadoop/zk),etc...

> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.>

Pretty much everything that would be required in the incubator wouldbe done as a sub. As you mention, as a sub we (zk community) would beon the hook to mentor them. The incubator has more experiencedoversight than we could bring to bear, they also have many more handsthan we do.

Granted, in each of the examples I gave earlier the projects did startas subs...

> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from> others?>

That's one of the things the incubator is for though, to build theinitial community.

> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will> implicitly answer 3 :)>

> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was for> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for> bookkeeper/hedwig;> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and hdfs> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of bookkeeper> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps bookkeeper> would be a better choice;>

Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed systemcoordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of astretch? ;-)

RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible forthe creation and maintenance of software related to distributed systemcoordination; and be it further> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point. For> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared to> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.>> -Flavio>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from> others?>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will> implicitly answer 3 :)>> thanx> ben>>> *flavio*> *junqueira*>> research scientist>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> direct +34 93-183-8828>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301>>>

>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was for>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for>> bookkeeper/hedwig;>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and hdfs>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of bookkeeper>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps bookkeeper>> would be a better choice;>>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of a> stretch? ;-)>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed system> coordination; and be it further>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point. For>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared to>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.>>>> -Flavio>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.>>>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.>>>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from>> others?>>>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will>> implicitly answer 3 :)>>>> thanx>> ben>>>>>> *flavio*>> *junqueira*>>>> research scientist>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> direct +34 93-183-8828>>>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es>> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301>>>>>>>

I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice tohave a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but thezk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwigand bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.

> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.>> thanks> mahadev>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:> >> >> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was> for> >> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those> >> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:> >>> >> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;> >> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for> >> bookkeeper/hedwig;> >> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and> hdfs> >> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of> bookkeeper> >> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.> >> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps> bookkeeper> >> would be a better choice;> >>> >> > Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system> > coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of> a> > stretch? ;-)> >> > RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible> > for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed> system> > coordination; and be it further> >> >> >> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these> >> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point.> For> >> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared> to> >> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.> >>> >> -Flavio> >>> >> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:> >>> >> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a> >> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general> >> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my> >> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:> >>> >> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two> >> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm> >> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the> >> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but> >> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and> >> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.> >>> >> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a> >> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it> >> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit> >> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.> >>> >> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first> >> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,> >> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is> >> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from> >> others?> >>> >> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm> >> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will> >> implicitly answer 3 :)> >>> >> thanx> >> ben> >>> >>> >> *flavio*> >> *junqueira*> >>> >> research scientist> >>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> direct +34 93-183-8828> >>> >> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es> >> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301> >>> >>> >>> >>

I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve very different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky. Perhaps bookkeeper could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving hedwig in until there's more community interest in it.

-Ivan

On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:

> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.> > -dhruba> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.>> >> thanks>> mahadev>> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:>>> >>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was>> for>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:>>>> >>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig;>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and>> hdfs>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of>> bookkeeper>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps>> bookkeeper>>>> would be a better choice;>>>> >>> >>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of>> a>>> stretch? ;-)>>> >>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed>> system>>> coordination; and be it further>>> >>> >>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point.>> For>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared>> to>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.>>>> >>>> -Flavio>>>> >>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:>>>> >>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:>>>> >>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but>>>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and>>>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.>>>> >>>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a>>>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it>>>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit>>>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.>>>> >>>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first>>>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,>>>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is>>>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from>>>> others?>>>> >>>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm>>>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will>>>> implicitly answer 3 :)>>>> >>>> thanx>>>> ben>>>> >>>> >>>> *flavio*>>>> *junqueira*

I tend to agree that we should do one at a time, and it is fine with me to have bookkeeper going out first.

On the discussion of Incubator vs. ZK sub-project, I don't see much different except for the PMC. If I understand the incubator scheme correctly, they have one PMC responsible for the oversight of incubator projects. Since we know the ZooKeeper PMC well and some of us are actually members of it, it seems more natural to me to stick with the ZK PMC instead of moving to a different PMC. Consequently, my current preference is ZK sub-project. Pat also pointed out that the ZK umbrella is broad enough to accommodate BK/Hedwig according to the Apache board resolution that established the project.

-Flavio

On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote:

> I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve > very different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky. > Perhaps bookkeeper could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving > hedwig in until there's more community interest in it.>> -Ivan>> On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:>>> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be >> nice to>> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but >> the>> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate >> out hedwig>> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.>>>> -dhruba>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote:>>>>> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.>>>>>> thanks>>> mahadev>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the >>>>> message was>>> for>>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those>>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:>>>>>>>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/ >>>>> hedwig;>>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for>>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig;>>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, >>>>> and>>> hdfs>>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of>>> bookkeeper>>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.>>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps>>> bookkeeper>>>>> would be a better choice;>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed >>>> system>>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too >>>> much of>>> a>>>> stretch? ;-)>>>>>>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is >>>> responsible>>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed>>> system>>>> coordination; and be it further>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for >>>>> these>>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this >>>>> point.>>> For>>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option >>>>> compared>>> to>>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.>>>>>>>>>> -Flavio>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:>>>>>>>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and >>>>> bookkeeper a>>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in >>>>> general>>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, >>>>> in my>>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:>>>>>>>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there >>>>> be two>>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm>>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or >>>>> two. the>>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on

i think we need to move both of them out of contrib. they are justlanguishing there. i agree that they could be separate projects, butthey are closer than may appear at a high level. the application thathedwig was designed for is using it as a write ahead log. likeTeaKeeper shows often there is a requirement to both log and broadcastchanges. In some sense we have this continuum: BookKeeper (singlewriter WAL), TeaKeeper (single writer WAL with broadcast), Hedwig(multiple writer WAL with broadcast). Hedwig is also tightlyintegrated with BookKeeper. The development community is also tightlyintegrated. i think there are valid reasons for doing an incubatorproject or for doing separate subprojects, but i think the best optionfor now would be to do a subproject under zookeeper (called eitherhedwig or bookkeeper) that would host both code bases.

ben

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Ivan Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve very different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky. Perhaps bookkeeper could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving hedwig in until there's more community interest in it.>> -Ivan>> On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:>>> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to>> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the>> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig>> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.>>>> -dhruba>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>>> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.>>>>>> thanks>>> mahadev>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was>>> for>>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those>>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:>>>>>>>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;>>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for>>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig;>>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and>>> hdfs>>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of>>> bookkeeper>>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.>>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps>>> bookkeeper>>>>> would be a better choice;>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system>>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of>>> a>>>> stretch? ;-)>>>>>>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible>>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed>>> system>>>> coordination; and be it further>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these>>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point.>>> For>>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared>>> to>>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.>>>>>>>>>> -Flavio>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:>>>>>>>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a>>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general>>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my>>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:>>>>>>>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two>>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm>>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the>>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but

NEW: Monitor These Apps!

All projects made searchable here are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation.
Service operated by Sematext